Challenges and Strategies in Helping the DSM Become More Dimensional and Empirically Based

Current Psychiatry Reports

Volumn 16, Issue 12, 2014, Pages

  Krueger, Robert F ^a   Hopwood, Christopher J ^b   Wright, Aidan G C ^c   Markon, Kristian E ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d University of Iowa   (United States)

Author keywords

Categories; Classification; Dimensions; Mental disorder; Nosology

Indexed keywords

BIPOLAR I DISORDER; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; CRITERION VARIABLE; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; DSM-5; DSM-IV-TR; DYSTHYMIA; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; GENERALIZED ANXIETY DISORDER; GENETIC HETEROGENEITY; HUMAN; MAJOR DEPRESSION; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MENTAL DISEASE; NATIONAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION; NEUROBIOLOGY; PANIC; PERSONALITY; PERSONALITY DISORDER; REVIEW; SCHIZOTYPAL PERSONALITY DISORDER; SOCIAL PHOBIA; VALIDATION PROCESS; CLASSIFICATION; DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS; MENTAL DISORDERS; STANDARDS; UNITED STATES;

DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS; HUMANS; MENTAL DISORDERS; NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH (U.S.); UNITED STATES;

EID: 84912551983     PISSN: 15233812     EISSN: 15351645     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11920-014-0515-3     Document Type: Review

References (30)

1. Widiger TA, Simonsen E, Krueger RF, Livesley JW, Verheul R. Personality disorder research agenda for the DSM-V. J Pers Disord. 2005;19:315–38.
2. Brown TA, Campbell LA, Lehman CL, Grisham JR, Mancill RB. Current and lifetime comorbidity of the DSM-IV anxiety and mood disorders in a large clinical sample. J Abnorm Psychol. 2001;110:585–99.
3. Kupfer DJ, Kuhl EA, Regier DA. DSM-5—the future arrived. JAMA. 2013;309(16):1691–2. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.2298. Reviews efforts of the DSM-5 Task Force co-chairs (Kupfer and Regier) to make DSM better reflect evidence of the dimensional nature of psychopathology.
4. Whooley O, Horwitz AV. The paradox of professional success: grand ambition, furious resistance, and the derailment of the DSM-5 revision process. In: Paris J, Philips J, editors. Making the DSM-5: concepts and controversies. New York: Springer; 2013. p. 75–92.
5. Verheul R. Clinical utility of dimensional models for personality pathology. J Pers Disord. 2005;19:283–302.
6. Skodol AE, Morey LC, Bender DS, Oldham JM. The ironic fate of the personality disorders in DSM-5. Personal Disord. 2013;4:342–9. doi:10.1037/per0000029.
7. Morey LC, Skodol AE, Oldham JM. Clinician judgments of clinical utility: a comparison of DSM-IV-TR personality disorders and the alternative model for DSM-5 personality disorders. J Abnorm Psychol. 2014;123:398–405. doi:10.1037/a0036481.
8. Lilienfeld SO, Waldman ID. Comorbidity and chairman Mao. World Psychiatry. 2004;3:26–7.
9. Maj M. ‘Psychiatric comorbidity’: an artifact of current diagnostic systems? Br J Psychiatry. 2005;186:182–4.
10. Krueger RF, Hopwood CJ, Wright, AGC, Markon KE. DSM-5 and the Path toward Empirically Based and Clinically Useful Conceptualization of Personality and Psychopathology. Clin Psychol Sci Pract. 2014;21(3):245–261. doi:10.1111/cpsp.12073
11. Gunderson JG. Introduction to section IV: personality disorders. In: Widiger TA, Frances A, Pincus H, et al., editors. DSM IV sourcebook, vol. 2. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association; 1996.
12. Eaton N, Krueger RF, Keyes KM, Skodol AE, Markon KE, Grant BF, et al. Borderline personality disorder co-morbidity: relationship to the internalizing-externalizing structure of common mental disorders. Psychol Med. 2011;41:1041–50.
13. James LM, Taylor J. Revisiting the structure of mental disorders: borderline personality disorder and the internalizing/externalizing spectra. Br J Clin Psychol. 2008;47:361–80.
14. Ramos V, Canta G, deCastro F, Leal I. Discrete subgroups of adolescents diagnosed with borderline personality disorder: a latent class analysis of personality features. J Pers Dis. 2014. In press.
15. Conway C, Hammen C, Brennan P. A comparison of latent class, latent trait, and factor mixture models of DSM-IV borderline personality criteria in a community setting: implications for DSM-5. J Pers Disord. 2012;26:793–803.
16. Hallquist MN, Wright AGC. Mixture modeling methods for the assessment of normal and abnormal personality part I: cross-sectional models. J Pers Assess. 2014;96(3):256–68.
17. Haslam N, Holland E, Kuppens P. Categories versus dimensions in personality and psychopathology: a quantitative review of taxometric research. Psychol Med. 2012;42:903–20.
18. Ahmed AO, Green BA, Goodrum NM, Doane NJ, Birgenheir D, Buckley PF. Does a latent class underlie Schizotypal personality disorder? Implications for schizophrenia. J Abnorm Psychol. 2013;122:475–91.
19. Kendler KS, Myers J. The boundaries of the internalizing and externalizing genetic spectra in men and women. Psychol Med. 2014;44(3):647–55. doi:10.1017/S0033291713000585
20. Eaton NR, Krueger RF, Markon KE, Keyes K, Skodol AE, Wall M, et al. The structure and predictive validity of the internalizing disorders. J Abnorm Psychol. 2013;122:86–92.
21. MacDonald III AW, Krueger RF. Mapping the country within: a special section on reconceptualizing the classification of mental disorders. J Abnorm Psychol. 2013;122:891–3.
22. Maj M. Keeping an open attitude towards the RDoC project. World Psychiatry. 2014;13:1–3.
23. Trull TJ, Widiger TA. Dimensional models of personality: the five factor model and the DSM-5. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2013;15:135–46.
24. Costa Jr PT, Widiger TA. Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2012.
25. Harkness AR, McNulty JL. The Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5): Issues from the pages of a diagnostic manual instead of a dictionary. In: Strack S, Lorr M, editors. Differentiating normal and abnormal personality. New York: Springer; 1994. p. 291–315.
26. Wright AGC, Simms LJ. On the structure of personality disorder traits: conjoint analyses of the CAT-PD, PID-5, and NEO-PI-3 trait models. Personality Disord: Theory Res Treat. 2014;5:43–54.
27. Krueger RF, Markon KE. The role of the DSM-5 personality trait model in moving toward a quantitative and empirically based approach to classifying personality and psychopathology. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2014;10:477–501. doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153732. Provides a recent review of empirical literature on the DSM-5 personality trait model.
28. Shiner RL. The development of personality disorders: perspectives from normal personality development in childhood and adolescence. Dev Psychopathol. 2009;21:715–35.
29. Adelstein JS et al. Personality is reflected in the brain’s intrinsic functional architecture. PLoS One. 2011;6(11):e27633. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027633. Provides evidence that aspects of the intrinsic functional organization of the brain reflect major domains of human personality.
30. First MB. Clinical utility: a prerequisite for the adoption of a dimensional approach in DSM. J Abnorm Psychol. 2005;114(4):560–4.